The Truth About Media Bias
& Why Patriot Virtus Fights Back
I have discussed this before: how Patriot Virtus began as my way of resisting what I hoped would be Donald Trump’s and MAGA’s political downfall. Unfortunately, for various reasons, we are now facing another four years with this domestic terrorist in charge of the country, seemingly intent on its destruction. As I mentioned, this is no longer a temporary resistance; it has become a long-term necessity. So, let’s talk about why Patriot Virtus needs to continue and where I see this leading.
Why Keep Patriot Virtus Alive?
I have seen a complete collapse of mainstream media. Over a decade ago, I stopped using it as a primary news source because it became blatantly biased. Add to that the fact that these outlets are all owned by billionaires, and you get propaganda machines pushing corporate and political agendas instead of truth.
This leads to hypocrisy, with the same type of news being reported differently depending on the network’s bias or, worse, not being reported at all to avoid making their side look bad. This is not journalism. This is not news. And that is why independent voices like Patriot Virtus must step in.
Understanding Media Bias
First, let’s clarify what I mean by media bias. Some people assume I am saying bias means every report is false or that journalists are always lying. That is not the case. Bias often comes from selective storytelling, omission, and framing, which are subtle but powerful ways to distort reality.
Let’s use a hypothetical example.
A man shoots another man outside his home during an argument. A responsible news source would report:
• Where it happened
• When it happened
• Who was involved
• If there was an arrest
Now, here is how media bias manipulates the story.
A right-leaning outlet sees that the shooter was a military veteran and the victim had a criminal record. They might frame the story as “War hero defends home against a violent felon.”
A left-leaning outlet noticed that the shooter was a gun owner and the victim was unarmed. They might run a headline like “Armed vigilante murders an unarmed man in dispute.”
The actual facts:
• The shooter was not in the military; he was just wearing a camo jacket.
• The victim did not have a violent record; his past charge was a nonviolent misdemeanor.
• The argument was not self-defense or murder; it was a personal dispute that escalated.
Both media outlets distorted the event to fit their bias.
The Difference Between Distorting Facts and Having a Belief System
There are some issues where bias is unacceptable, where news should focus on the facts without speculation, omission, or misleading framing. Crime reporting is a good example. If a murder happens, the role of the media should be to report who, what, when, where, and why without injecting narratives that fit their ideological agendas.
However, some issues are deeply tied to personal, moral, or political belief systems, and in these cases, it is understandable that media coverage will reflect those biases.
Take climate change as an example.
• Left-leaning outlets will report from the standpoint that climate change is real, caused by humans, and an urgent crisis that demands immediate action.
• Right-leaning outlets might downplay the severity, emphasize the economic consequences of regulations, or even push skepticism toward climate science.
Both sides have a bias, but that bias comes from ideological positioning rather than outright falsehoods (though falsehoods can sometimes creep in). The same thing happens with issues like:
• Abortion (one side views it as a fundamental right, the other as the taking of a life)
• Gun control (one side sees it as safety, the other as a constitutional right)
• Border control (one side sees it as protecting sovereignty, the other as humanitarian duty)
• Death penalty (one side views it as justice, the other as a moral failing)
Naturally, coverage of these issues will reflect the media’s underlying belief systems. The problem is not that these biases exist, but when they start replacing facts with manipulative framing.
For example, it is one thing for a conservative outlet to argue against climate change regulations by pointing out their economic impact. It is another for them to falsely claim that climate change is a hoax despite overwhelming scientific evidence.
Similarly, a liberal outlet can advocate for abortion rights. Still, if they report on a violent attack at an abortion clinic, they should not ignore the identity of the attacker or omit key facts to shape the story.
This is the difference between belief-driven bias and fact-distorting bias.
The Difference Between Distorting Facts and Having a Belief System
There are some issues where bias is unacceptable, where news should focus on the facts without speculation, omission, or misleading framing. Crime reporting is a good example. If a murder happens, the role of the media should be to report who, what, when, where, and why without injecting narratives that fit their ideological agendas.
However, some issues are deeply tied to personal, moral, or political belief systems, and in these cases, it is understandable that media coverage will reflect those biases.
Take climate change as an example.
• Left-leaning outlets will report from the standpoint that climate change is real, caused by humans, and an urgent crisis that demands immediate action.
• Right-leaning outlets might downplay the severity, emphasize the economic consequences of regulations, or even push skepticism toward climate science.
Both sides have a bias, but that bias comes from ideological positioning rather than outright falsehoods (though falsehoods can sometimes creep in). The same thing happens with issues like:
• Abortion (one side views it as a fundamental right, the other as the taking of a life)
• Gun control (one side sees it as safety, the other as a constitutional right)
• Border control (one side sees it as protecting sovereignty, the other as humanitarian duty)
• Death penalty (one side views it as justice, the other as a moral failing)
Naturally, coverage of these issues will reflect the media’s underlying belief systems. The problem is not that these biases exist, but when they start replacing facts with manipulative framing.
For example, it is one thing for a conservative outlet to argue against climate change regulations by pointing out their economic impact. It is another for them to falsely claim that climate change is a hoax despite overwhelming scientific evidence.
Similarly, a liberal outlet can advocate for abortion rights. Still, if they report on a violent attack at an abortion clinic, they should not ignore the identity of the attacker or omit key facts to shape the story.
This is the difference between belief-driven bias and fact-distorting bias.
Why This Distinction Matters
Bias exists in all reporting, but not all bias is equal. Some biases are based on values, priorities, and worldviews. Others are intentional manipulations of truth designed to push an agenda. Understanding the difference is key to recognizing when the media is simply taking a stance vs. actively misleading the public.
How the Media Manipulates the Epstein Story
The Epstein files are a prime example of how media bias protects specific figures while vilifying others. There is ample evidence that many prominent names are connected to Epstein, yet depending on where you get your news, some of these names might be entirely new for you.
This is a massive red flag.
If one name on this list concerns you, all of them should. However, instead of reporting all the connections fairly, the media selectively chooses which names to highlight based on their political biases and corporate interests.
How Media Bias Shapes the Epstein Narrative
Right-leaning media (Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Wire, etc.) tends to focus on:
• Bill Clinton
• Prince Andrew
• Alan Dershowitz
• Bill Gates
They downplay or ignore connections to:
• Donald Trump
• Les Wexner (a major Republican donor)
• Leon Black
• Glenn Dubin
Because Clinton, Gates, and Prince Andrew fit their narrative of “liberal elite corruption.”
Left-leaning media (CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, etc.) tends to focus on:
• Donald Trump
• Kevin Spacey
• Harvey Weinstein
They downplay or ignore connections to:
• Bill Clinton
• Bill Gates
• Larry Summers
• Woody Allen
Because Trump and Weinstein fit their narrative of “right-wing and Hollywood sexual predators,” while Clinton and Gates are seen as untouchable figures.
Media Omissions and Hypocrisy
• When Bill Clinton spoke at the 2024 DNC, no major left-leaning outlet brought up his Epstein connections.
• Prince Andrew’s Epstein ties were a major story until Prince Harry started criticizing the royal family, at which point left-leaning media quietly dropped the subject.
• Bill Gates was heavily covered when his Epstein ties first surfaced but was quickly rehabilitated in the press because of his philanthropic work and media investments.
• Alan Dershowitz gets attention in conservative media only when defending Trump, while his Epstein ties are largely ignored on both sides.
This is not journalism, it is propaganda.
Epstein’s Black Book: Who Gets Covered, Who Gets a Pass
Below is a list of high-profile figures linked to Epstein, along with how different media outlets handled their stories.
| Name | Known Media Coverage | Ignored or Downplayed By |
|---|---|---|
| Bill Clinton | Covered by right-wing media | Left-leaning outlets (CNN, NYT) rarely discuss his Epstein ties |
| Donald Trump | Covered by left-leaning media | Right-wing media minimizes his ties |
| Prince Andrew | Heavily covered initially | Story faded in left-leaning media |
| Bill Gates | Brief media attention, then ignored | Business-friendly outlets avoid discussing |
| Alan Dershowitz | Mentioned in some reports | Generally downplayed after his legal defenses |
| Jean-Luc Brunel | Covered extensively due to trafficking charges | No major political bias |
| Kevin Spacey | Left-leaning media covered his Hollywood downfall | Right-leaning media focused more on Clinton |
| Les Wexner | Almost no media coverage | Donor ties to Republicans kept him out of the spotlight |
| Woody Allen | Some left-leaning media coverage | Hollywood still protects his legacy |
| Leon Black | Reported briefly, then faded | His wealth and influence shielded him |
| Larry Summers | Barely reported | Harvard connections protect him |
| Chris Tucker | Covered briefly | The media avoids linking Epstein to broader financial elites |
| Glenn Dubin | Almost no media coverage | Billionaire status shields him |
| Naomi Campbell | Reported lightly in celebrity gossip | No deep investigations |
| Peter Soros | Barely reported | The story faded in left-leaning media |
This is not about guilt or innocence but how the media selectively chooses who to expose and who to protect.
The Bigger Picture: Why Patriot Virtus Stays in the Fight
This is precisely why I am keeping Patriot Virtus alive. Because the mainstream media is compromised. They are not interested in truth. They are interested in protecting their allies and attacking their enemies. I refuse to let that stand.
Going forward, Patriot Virtus will continue to call out hypocrisy, regardless of whom it benefits or hurts. If that means taking on both Fox News and CNN, then so be it. If it means exposing both Republicans and Democrats, not because it is fun but because it is the right thing to do. At the end of the day, the truth matters more than tribalism.
If you are tired of the manipulated narratives, then stick around because this fight is not over.
Final Thoughts
• If Bill Clinton’s Epstein ties bother you but Donald Trump’s do not, you are part of the problem.
• If Trump’s ties bother you but Clinton’s do not, you are part of the problem.
• If you only see half the corruption, you are letting the media control your outrage.
It is time to wake up. Let’s hold all of them accountable. Onward.
Sources
Here are sources confirming the associations between Jeffrey Epstein and the individuals mentioned in the article:
• Bill Clinton – Flight logs indicate that former President Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s private jet multiple times. (NPR)
• Alan Dershowitz – Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz was implicated in court documents related to Epstein. (NPR)
• Bill Gates – Reports confirm Bill Gates had multiple meetings with Epstein, starting in 2011. (BBC)
• Prince Andrew – Court documents and witness testimonies highlight Prince Andrew’s connections to Epstein. (The Guardian)
• Jean-Luc Brunel – French modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel was arrested for human trafficking in connection with Epstein. (The Guardian)
• David Copperfield – Named in unsealed court documents in association with Epstein. (Independent)
• Stephen Hawking – Visited Epstein’s private island for a science conference but was never accused of wrongdoing. (NDTV)
• Michael Jackson – His name appeared in Epstein’s “black book,” but no known direct connection. (Business Insider)
• Donald Trump – Social interactions with Epstein documented in flight logs and photographs. (Vanity Fair)
Support The Virtus Press
The Virtus Press is committed to bold, honest commentary that challenges the left and right alike. If it needs to be said, we say it.
If you enjoy our content, please consider donating to help us continue doing what we do best.
Your contributions allow us to sustain and enhance our mission.
Follow me on Bluesky for updates on this and other topics that shape our nation’s identity.
